Romney’s victory may be game-changer

At the first debate, the stakes were immense for the Republican challenger, a former governor of an affluent coastal state who was coming off several campaign stumbles. The Democratic incumbent was struck with a struggling economy and suffered recent foreign-policy setbacks, but was leading in many polls. The question for the challenger: Could he seem the equal of the sitting president? Could his performance reassure the millions watching and allow them to easily imagine him taking over as commander-in-chief?

This was the challenge facing Ronald Reagan in October 1980. He rose to it, and went on to easily defeat Jimmy Carter. This was also the challenge facing Mitt Romney on Wednesday night.

Did he rise to it? Absolutely.

It would be silly to assume Romney is now on his way to victory. But we think that many of the Americans who watched the president and his challenger go at it in their televised debate will come away believing that Romney is up to the job – and that he is not the caricature that many on the left, in and out of the media, want us to believe.

In his remarks, Romney was more assured and cogent. The split-screen cameras constantly showed the president looking down as if he were cramming. Romney for the most part just kept offering a slight smile as Obama spoke. The challenger conveyed much more of a sense that he was enjoying himself than the president, who showed flickers of impatience and annoyance.

But it was also a good night for Romney on substance. He went after the “$90 billion” in subsidies he said the president has showered on often-failed green-jobs programs while pretending to be a budget-cutter and advocate of the free market. He noted correctly that the Simpson-Bowles debt commission recommendations that the president indicated support for in fact had been shunned by Obama soon after their release.

Romney also did a strong job of framing the election as being between a chief executive who thinks “government should pick winners and losers” in the economy and a challenger who believes the greatest hope to revive the economy, create jobs and reduce the deficit is a thriving private sector.

The president had his moments, starting with the inevitable mention that Obamacare was inspired by Romney’s health reforms in Massachusetts. Obama’s closing remarks about his empathy for the middle class and his devotion to them evoked his most effective moments from 2008.

But the only gaffe we detected was by the president. In saying that his position on Social Security was similar to Romney’s, Obama undercut a central theme of millions of dollars of Democratic attack ads. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz was apoplectic, and he wasn’t the only irate pundit from the left.

As many noted on Twitter, this was an unusually substantial debate. More than a few prominent commentators wondered if the public was bored with the wonky tone. But we welcome it. As both candidates said, the differences are huge and the stakes are immense.

On Wednesday night, at least, the side that believes you can’t borrow your way to prosperity had the better of it. Here’s hoping Romney’s performance gives him the bounce he deserves.